Rudy Raises $11 Million In Third Quarter | Home | Breaking: Despite Decision, Larry Craig Says He'll Stay In The Senate! »
Judge's Decision Eviscerates Craig: "A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public restroom stall."
Okay, we've got a copy for you here of the judge's decision in the Larry Craig case, in which he denied Craig's request to deny his guilty plea. You can read it right here in our TPM Document Collection.
Suffice it to say that the 27-page decision is a rather long and rigorous decision for a misdemeanor case -- a reflection of both Craig's tenacious battling and of the tortured nature of Craig's legal arguments. The gist of the decision is, well, that Craig knew what he was doing and admitted as much, and that the evidence supported that version of events.
Here's a sample of the judge's wisdom to whet your, er, appetite: "A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public restroom stall."
More fun quotes from the decision after the jump.
Some samples from the decision:
A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public restroom stall...Here, because the Defendant concedes Sgt. Karsnia's facts as alleged in the Complaint are true, and because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the restroom stall, the facts alleged in the Complaint provide a sufficient supplemental factual basis for a conviction of disorderly conduct. The Defendant knew or should have known his entrance into Sg. Karsnia's stall with his eyes, foot and hand are the type of acts that would "tend reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others."
More:
The Defendant next argues the overall plea record is deficient because Judge Larson did not question him on the record about the factual basis. The Defendant reasons that if Judge Larson had questioned him live, Judge Larson would have realized the Defendant did not intend to plead guilty to the specific facts alleged by Sgt. Karsnia. This is a circular argument. The Defendant chose to not appear and to enter his plea by mail just so he could avoid any such publicly, of record, inquiry into his conduct...He cannot now complain that he should not have been allowed to take advantage of an approved method to enter a misdemeanor plea.
More:
The Defendant argues he pled in haste to prevent the allegations in this case of being publicized, thus doing damage to his political reputation. In this argument, the Defendant suggests that a manifest injustice occurred when he was legally forced to decide between making a public court appearance with the publicity risks attendant thereto or not making an appearance in hopes that entering a quick and discreet guilty plea would lessen the prospect of the undesirable political consequences derived from having the allegations publicized. This pressure was entirely perceived by the Defendant and was not a result of any action by the police, the prosecutor, or the court.
More:
The Defendant is an educated adult, who was advised by the prosecutor himself to consult an attorney.
The conclusion:
Because the Defendant's plea was accurate, voluntary, and intelligent, and because the conviction is supported by the evidence, the Defendant's conviction for disorderly conduct occurring on June 11, 2007 in the men's public restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in Bloomington, Hennepin County, Minnesota, is valid. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is DENIED.
End of an era.
Or maybe not.
Stay tuned.
I'm glad the judge didn't fall for the phony baloney lawyered-up crap from Craig's paid goon.
Unfortunately, this won't change electoral politics in Idaho. They'll just swap him out for another extremist.
October 4, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's amazing how easily he lied about this! Not the event itself, but when he took his first run at resigning, he said (paraphrasing) "Idaho deserves an undistracted representative, with his full attention on the people's business." And then shortly thereafter he began his legal fight.
I wish I had seen someone throw this back at him. "If you're not giving your constituents your full attention, Senator, are you saying Idaho deserves less?"
October 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There once was a Senator named Craig,
who crapped with a wiggling leg.
Tho he professed to hate Gays,
at the end of his days,
he'll be remembered with much facial egg!
October 4, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a waste of police power to have laws stationing policeman in restrooms to "catch" people making sexual overtures to others. Better they should be on the streets investigating real crimes. That would involve decriminalizing homosexual behavior and I'm sure the Senator Craig would never have agreed to that. At least until his recent wide-stance adventure in that Minneapolis restroom.That being said, I cannot but take an enormous, almost unseemly pleasure in seeing Craig's hypocrisy exposed to all the world.
October 4, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That opinion is as sound as the Dollar (Canadian of course). It's length is a precaution against getting overturned on appeal. That thing ain't getting overturned on appeal.
October 4, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a waste of police power to have laws stationing policeman in restrooms to "catch" people making sexual overtures to others. Better they should be on the streets investigating real crimes. That would involve decriminalizing homosexual behavior and I'm sure the Senator Craig would never have agreed to that. At least until his recent wide-stance adventure in that Minneapolis restroom.That being said, I cannot but take an enormous, almost unseemly pleasure in seeing Craig's hypocrisy exposed to all the world.
October 4, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maryalice:
A long time ago when our son was 3 years old and he and his father were intending to take the NY subway, my husband asked a policeman where the men's room was. The officer literally walked them there and stayed with them. You may think that too was a waste of police time. But we have always viewed that as an amazing protective act by that officer.
Restrooms in public places, where people like Craig seek sexual dalliance, are places you should be able to take your son without interference or scandal. I appreciate that the police take notice of this and try to protect citizens.
In my view the problem here is that Craig has used a great deal of time and effort of a judge, simply because he has chosen to engage in behavior which makes a public restroom an unsavory place to send your child into and then wanted to backtrack once it all became public. For shame!
I wonder how often Craig has been arrested in the past. How often has he gotten off by showing his Senate card to the arresting officer? How much time has he wasted in mens' rooms? How much police time has he wasted?
He's certainly wasting my time!
October 4, 2007 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't a waste of police power to catch men who are preying on others in a washroom. We don't know if there were complaints previously of men being harrassed. I would hate to think of sending my teenage son into a washroom where he was bothered. I'm sure MN takes such incidences seriously, and surely wouldn't want their airport known for such raunchy behavior.
October 4, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to see this as anything but a good break for Craig. What if he was able to withdraw his plea? Then he'd have a trial during which, if I were prosecuting it, I'd build a full scale model of the toilet stall and make Craig re-enact his conduct, and have the cop also show what happened.
There's no way in hell he would have gotten off this charge, either in front of a jury or a judge. Then he would have appealed, and I doubt the Minnesota SJC would have been willing to throw out decades of case law just to let Larry off the hook.
This is what Larry wanted. Now he can run around bleating about what a raw deal he got from the judge.
October 4, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The longer this lasts the better. I would love to see this go to the Supremes with the "wide stance" defense.
What he has failed to yet realize is that whatever happens from now on he can no longer fix his reputation, he screwed up and now he will pay for it. The best he can hope for is to spend more time with his family.
It's strange that he has the guts to solicit sex with a stranger but not to confront his sexuality.
October 4, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with LongTom.
Larry Craig will say he was refused his "day in court" for the rest of his life.
October 4, 2007 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just musing on whether Larry will show up at the Repuglican Convention in MSP...
October 4, 2007 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the judge is trying to head off an appeal.
October 4, 2007 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Ms. M @ 6:23. There had been complaints of harrassment in the rest room. That's why Sgt. Karsnia was in there, waiting.
October 4, 2007 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It isn't a waste of police power to catch men who are preying on others in a washroom. We don't know if there were complaints previously of men being harrassed. I would hate to think of sending my teenage son into a washroom where he was bothered. I'm sure MN takes such incidences seriously, and surely wouldn't want their airport known for such raunchy behavior."
Making (fairly discrete) "advances" seems to fall far short of "preying". What's the difference between tapping your foot in the general direction of someone of the same sex and winking at someone of the opposite sex?
Had Craig been caught engaging in sexual acts in a public place then that would be another matter.
(BTW, people have asked Craig if he is gay, which he denies. Why has no one asked Craig if he's bisexual?)
October 4, 2007 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob sez:
'Making (fairly discrete) "advances" seems to fall far short of "preying". What's the difference between tapping your foot in the general direction of someone of the same sex and winking at someone of the opposite sex?'
Bob, the difference is that the foot tapping ain't happenin' where the band's playing... It's in the f'ing crapper! Some of us are trying to, you know, go to the bathroom. Getting hit on whilst doing so is at the very least harassment. Only a very close buddy would even try to talk to another guy while he's behind a stall door pooping. We all know this; it's part of the social contract of the bathroom. And anyway we ain't talkin' about foot tapping alone. Read the judge's review of the actions in question.
October 5, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
MARYALICE RICHERT wrote on October 4, 2007 5:41 PM: It's a waste of police power to have laws stationing policeman in restrooms to "catch" people making sexual overtures to others.
Get real. Police were responding to repeated complaints of harassment.
If your idea of a routine come-on is a stranger peeping into your locked bathroom stall, then reaching underneath with his foot and nudging yours and following up by groping around with his hand then you need to raise your expectations of partnering up.
This wasn't to "criminalize homosexuality." Same-sex couples could enjoy the areas outside the bathroom in every way an opposite-sex couple could, including making the same kind of overtures up to whatever wouldn't get an opposite-sex couple arrested for the same.
The crime wasn't about same-sex issues but people being harassed in an area which unfortunately is one of the few remaining places we can expect privacy.
October 8, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink